Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kibermanis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kibermanis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a hockey player and political figure, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for hockey players or political figures. In hockey he only ever played at the WHL level, which is not a level at which a person is "inherently" notable enough for an article, and was drafted by, but never actually played for, an NHL team -- and as a politician he was only ever an unsuccessful candidate, and never held any notable political office that would pass WP:NPOL at all.
A prod was recently declined on the grounds that he has "many mentions in newspapers due to his political aspirations" -- but run of the mill campaign coverage does not secure the notability of an unelected candidate in and of itself, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. (Which means that if campaign coverage were all it took to give an unelected candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL in and of itself, then every unelected candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be rendered unenforceable and meaningless.)
So campaign coverage does not build passage of GNG in and of itself: a person who had already passed a notability criterion (either as a hockey player or by winning the election and thereby holding the office) can use their campaign coverage as supplementary support for fleshing out the article with background information, but a non-winning candidate who has no other preexisting basis for notability does not clinch inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of campaign coverage alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ice hockey, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he won the seat in the provincial legislature, he would pass NPOL, but the article isn't on that point. An Alberta MLA is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't win the seat, and wasn't an MLA. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with Bearcat. The subject's hockey career comes not within a light-year of meeting any notability standard, he doesn't meet NPOL, and no evidence of passing the GNG beyond routine campaign coverage has been proffered. And somehow this article's already slipped through the cracks for seventeen years? Ravenswing 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: But isn't the fact that he was initially declared the winner of the incumbent's seat by only 5 votes and the recount gave it back to the incumbent by only 3 votes worthy of note? The incumbent's career could have ended after less than four years; instead, it lasted 14 years. That said, I can't say that his hockey career alone would warrant an article. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the incident is discussed extensively in the Edmonton-Castle Downs article. It doesn't therefore follow that Kibermanis himself merits a standalone article, when it would just reiterate the same information. Ravenswing 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, people being initially declared elected by the media on election night and then found to have lost on a recount are not notable for that per se: the final certified results (in which he wasn't the winner) are what's definitive when it comes to NPOL, not the initial media call. While things like that don't always happen in every election, it happens often enough that it isn't special in and of itself. The recount can be addressed in the electoral district article and/or the BLP of the winner, and doesn't automatically require a BLP of the loser to coexist on that basis alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.